Post-PC? "World with user-serviceable components"? I don't know what world jfruhlinger lives on, but it ain't the same as mine. Desktop PC's will be around for a very long time. It's pretty hard to do any kind of actual work on an i*.
Not to mention that Newegg doesn't just sell computer parts. I've purchased all sorts of goods from them, including a fairly inexpensive point-and-shoot camera for my mum.
In this case the "crowdsourced" product is proprietary and only benefits stream; unlike Google's product, o one else benefits from the CrowdWork.
What about people who want to play that game but can't because of the language barrier? Would you suggest that they're not benefiting from a crowd-sourced translation?
And you're forgetting that the producer is also a consumer: They're translating a game that they can then have access to in their native tongue, along with their friends who might not be able to speak English. By simplifying the relationships as you've done, you're twisting reality.
Or let's look at it another way: Someone likes to do something so much that they offer to do it for free; it just so happens that this thing they enjoy is translating. Perhaps they're a student or simply someone who would like to see the games they purchased available in their native language. Do they really lose out?
If they're a student, they can add this translation to their resume which would certainly bolster their position in the job market. If they're doing it so friends of theirs can play more easily, they receive the benefit of being able to play the game with their friends. If they're doing it just for the sake of doing it, they lose out--right? Nope, because individuals who volunteer for something of this sort receive satisfaction in some way (the key word being "volunteer"). No one's forcing them.
That said, I do think Valve ought to offer them a few copies of the game being translated, but they are under absolutely no obligation to provide compensation.
Yes, read the first paragraph indeed, which you did not quote from. I'll help:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
In this particular case, Valve's customers have not entered into any agreement for compensation, and individual translators are likely working for their "own advantage," e.g. having available a translation in their native tongue.
Further, since everyone is caught up in the notion that this applies to religious organizations and that they are the only ones exempt, it might also behoove you to read that specific part:
Individuals who volunteer or donate their services, usually on a part-time basis, for public service, religious or humanitarian objectives, not as employees and without contemplation of pay, are not considered employees of the religious, charitable or similar non-profit organizations that receive their service.
I suspect this is yet another case of someone cherry-picking without reading the entire text in full. Valve has lawyers; do not believe that they would be so ignorant as to do something intentionally wrong. I realize this is Slashdot and the underlying premise of these arguments is that corporations are evil. Corporations aren't immoral; they're amoral. The people leading them can be immoral, and if they are--and they get caught--then they may suffer the consequences of their actions.
Either way, I suspect everyone interpreting the FLSA to mean that Valve--and anyone with unpaid volunteer labor--hasn't read anything of the links provided.
I think it's a good idea for people to know what they are eating. That way they'd at least regularly realize that some poor animal died so they could have fried chicken etc.
Perhaps "regularly" reminding consumers they're eating cooked, dead animal carcasses might be of some use to ethical vegetarians/vegans, but for the rest of us: Animals are damn tasty.
That would mean that it was OBAMA's Government that did this. Wow, never would have thought that a bunch of left wing loons would make this case but, yeah, lets go with it!
This is at least one of the things that's been bugging me about Slashdot as of late. It's almost to the point that sites like Reddit et al are at; widespread belief of government-level conspiracy, "news blackouts," and the notion that there's a massive secret protest going on somewhere. I'm really beginning to believe most of the posters here are either completely delusional or trolling. I'm hoping for the latter, but since many of them seem pretty vehement about it, I'm not holding out much hope. Of course, I doubt any of them will make the connection you did, because they'll fail to see the dichotomy they've created, and they're likely to call you numerous unsavory things for pointing out the obvious.
Years ago, Slashdot was somewhat unique in that it had more critical thinkers per capita than most other sites at the time. While I still enjoy most of the conversations and at least some of the posts, I can't help but wonder how it's possible for such a large (or perhaps mostly vocal) chunk of the Slashdot community to repeat nonsense they hear elsewhere without any obvious effort put into considering whether or not it's even possible, true, or plausible.
Blaming Wallstreet for an "information blackout" (and ultimately for the current economic situation, while simultaneously giving the government a free pass) is one such thing that comes to mind. If the economy falters, companies are bringing in less revenue; anyone who's taken a basic business class ought to know that companies have only two obligations: 1) to the shareholders and, by extension 2) growth. Considering the selling of assets, outsourcing, closing of factories, etc., it sure seems to me that the problem isn't with Wallstreet but rather a weakened economy. Of course, trying to explain this to the typical poster here is impossible. You'll be met with either "you're one of them!" or "you're a shill for (company|politician|ideology)!"
Then again, I guess that's the best thing about being delusional. You can be faced with valid criticisms and blow them all off with ad hominem discourse while feeling you're maintaining your own intellectual integrity!
Rubbish attitude - this is why software is regarded as a 'hobby' for inexperienced and generally poor developers - you're too busy 'learning something new' all the time and not focussing on getting things done.
The software industry will never become as established and professional until this attitude disappears, we need masters of things, not continual change to something else.
So I suppose doctors, who must occasionally pick up new techniques and new information; teachers, who must occasionally learn new things and take workshops in order to better prepare their students for an ever-changing world; lawyers, who must adapt to new laws; and scientists who occasionally discover something groundbreaking enough to create a fundamental shift in their field are not professionals? This leaves us with historians as the only professionals who can truly master something, because history is not subject to change in most circumstances--oh wait, there's those pesky archaeologists and anthropologists who are continually mucking about with unearthing new discoveries...
All right, then. It appears we have no professionals among the disciplines based on your benchmark. Rather, we've established that every field experiences some degree of change; what we're arguing over is what rate of change is acceptable in order to classify a field as "professional."
CoffeeScript is just syntactic sugar. How does it help fix the fundamental performance problems with ECMAScript?
CoffeeScript doesn't pretend to address the performance problems with ECMAScript. In fact, it can't, because the CoffeeScript interpreter is just a translator that converts CoffeeScript into equivalent JavaScript. The only things that it addresses are those which make JavaScript's syntax somewhat awkward, and I think it does a fairly respectable job toward that goal.
Given that Universities are for the most part funded by government and other public funding sources one could make the case that they should ALL operate this way. Universities are the last entity that should be locking up ideas with patents.
TBH, I would take it a notch further and say that anyone (including companies) who receives public funding should be required to render a public service by providing that information to the public. After all, the public paid for it.
Now, it obviously gets messier if a company only receives 2% of their funding from public sources for whatever purposes, but the research the comes out of that shouldn't go back into their secret portfolio. I'd be find with companies keeping things to themselves that they alone paid for, but the problem is that you'll always find someone willing to game the system.
Ever wonder why the option at the end of every damn Government spending cycle to NOT spend the money is never an option to choose? Like we have to wonder how the hell we ended up trillions of dollars in debt.
In some parts of the DoD it's so bad that, due to the way the finances work, if there is unallocated parts of the budget they'll be removed for the following fiscal year, sending everyone into a scramble to spend whatever's left of their budget before the axe drops. It's no secret then that most divisions will then spend exactly their share (or request more) simply so that they don't receive a budget shortfall in the case they actually need the money.
If you think about it, it's really just a symptom of a broken system. Government budgets should probably be based more on need than on historical performance; it makes sense that those divisions who don't really "need" the money this year would be willing to spend it all just on the offhand chance they have a bigger project next year and would otherwise become underfunded.
Also, there was an excellent article on Kuro5hin a number of years ago detailing why bureaucratic red tape in departments like the DoD often lead to spending more rather than less. I can't seem to find it anymore, but perhaps someone with a better memory than I could link it. I haven't any idea how truthful it was, but I recall that it didn't seem all that unusual.
We give our emotions away in our eye movements, dilated pupils, biting or pressing together our lips, wrinkling our noses, breathing heavily, swallowing, blinking and facial asymmetry.
Most people who are nervous for whatever reason will do at least one or more of those things even when they're not necessarily lying. So, congratulations, you just pegged someone for being nervous!
Upon what do you base your belief that Senate Republicans are responsible for this spending cut? The Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party. The House, which is controlled by the Republicans, passed an appropriations bill which funded this program.
This is Slashdot where there are plenty of self-proclaimed "open-minded" individuals who profess to be without bias while simultaneously disbelieving anything that doesn't fit within the neat confines of their world view. Humorously, they place the blame of this activity upon the shoulders of those with whom they disagree.
The problem with Koreans is that online bullying is apparently wide-spread and vicious. So vicious, it appears, that some public personalities committed suicides because of anonymous attacks on them on forums that post private information, insults, lies, manipulative information and what not.
And when Texans brag to non-Texans that their state constitution uniquely grants them the right to secede from the union at any time, we tell them "what are you waiting for?"
They may brag about it, but that was never in the version of the State constitution that was ratified when they rejoined the union.
I'm not a numpty, and I have no reason to lie but I realise this is just another anecdote. That said, I also realise that you're being a massive troll. You're denigrating anyone who relates an anecdote that is contrary to your own, surely equally questionable, anecdote. Why is your anecdote beyond reproach?
There's a lot of this on Slashdot anymore. Personal sniping, denigrating comments, loads of self-righteousness. Maybe it's always been this way, but it certainly seems to be getting worse (well, politics.slashdot.org has always been pretty bad...).
Just to back up your observations: I triple boot between Win7, Arch, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu seems to take the longest of all three, although it's on my oldest disk and thus that distinction is probably unfair. Post-boot, Windows takes the longest to reach a usable state, but it's most definitely not abysmal. I also have quite a few services installed, so it's likely something expected. Windows has never done particularly well in that regard, but again, it's not abysmal.
I suspect anyone who might disagree with you has never owned a copy of Windows.
Right. I've heard Penn Jillette say several times he doesn't mind if you download BullShit! from Bittorrent if you subscribe to Showtime - you've already paid for it.
He probably doesn't own the copyright himself, but he's got the moral equation worked out properly.
That does bring something entertaining to mind. At least, it was funny in my head, so I apologize if it isn't so humorous written out. Imagine the following scenario:
Most televised broadcasts in the United States are paid for by some permutation of subscription fees to a cable or satellite service and/or advertisements. Imagine the conundrum presented if most torrents of these broadcasts contained identical ads*. The content creators couldn't necessarily argue that they were losing out on any inherent value, because the commercials would receive even greater exposure! Yes, yes, I know that's not the point that they'd argue, but it would be at least vaguely appealing if some network said "Hey, as long as you leave commercials our supporters paid for in the torrent, we don't mind."
* Presume that the content consumers were either too lazy or not savvy enough to strip these out.
The problem is, the Religious Right also wants to destroy the world. Go see Rapture Ready forums: every time something bad happens somewhere, the news is met with jubilence; because, after all, it hastens the day when Lord Jesus returns and drowns the world in fire while the righteous - meaning people who'll enjoy watching everyone else burn - watch. And if Lord Jesus might seem to be taking his time in returning... Well, one could always help God's plan along by causing some bad news, right?
I think you're a little too willing to tar most of the religious right with the same brush. I'm religious and reasonably right-leaning, and I suggest taking anything read on Rapture Ready with a grain of salt; had they actually read scripture, they'd understand two things: 1) it's impossible to predict the day or the hour and 2) the end cannot be hastened by our actions. That said, I do admit that I would classify those guys as the fringe religious crowd.
However, I suspect, judging by the rest of your rhetoric, that you simply have an axe to grind and have no real interest in dialog. I do hope I'm wrong, because it would also appear that the atheist-leaning mods of which I believe the majority is comprised agree with your position.
Side note: Why is Slashdot degenerating into Reddit all of a sudden? I thought we were more civil here?
To paraphrase you, showing weakness (by misguided action) has in fact been interpreted as a sign of weakness by the world.
Ten years of war didn't kill bin Laden. Two helicopters full of Special Forces did it in half an hour, in Pakistan no less.
Not completely. For twenty years (likely longer), the intelligence apparatus of the US had been weakened, but most importantly, it was never designed to address the use case presented in the Afghan/Iraqi wars. Rather, it was designed with a strong, state-like adversary such as the USSR, in mind where conventional tactics tend to work reasonably well and door-to-door tribal-level tactics do not.
That, fundamentally, is why it took ten years to find and kill bin Laden.
Why is interviewing Osama bin Laden considered anti-American? Why, "on this day", are we not allowed to state the reasons that he gave for attacking the U.S.? Would it make you feel better if we all pretend that he was just a crazy guy who never tried to justify his actions?
The problem isn't necessarily with you, but if you were to scroll a little further up the thread, you might find topics titled "fuck the usa" along with matching rhetoric that leads those who may have lost (or feel a strong emotional attachment to those lost) loved ones on Sept. 11th to feel pretty upset. There isn't anything wrong with sharing opinions, but I think one of the generalized problems here is that most of us tend not to fully appreciate social norms for when certain things are truly appropriate to share, and more importantly when they are not.
Of course, there's those who feel that condemning the actions of the US on the 11th to be highly appropriate; though, they're simply delusional and more interested in their own self-righteousness. They won't feel that way, of course, but piousness and a feeling of moralistic superiority over others (like Americans) is the fundamental definition of such. Hence, it should be at least somewhat reasonable to expect that most Americans might feel an inkling of offense at the anti-American (either presumed or real) slant offered in some posts above. Again, I don't think all of these posts are so much malicious as they are exceedingly poorly timed, like yours. Yes, I know: What better time to discuss bin Laden and his motives than in a story about 9/11! To do so and to be honestly surprised at some of the negative responses supports my inference that we geeks tend to be difficult at handling social norms. Don't be surprised; instead, I would advise that you (but mostly the others who are more vocal and less polite) try to offer some degree of understanding.
For instance, assuming all else is equal, some of these posts would be akin to waiting until 2021 and posting on Slashdot for the anniversary of the Norway shooting/bombing "Fuck Norway." Unfortunately, even this example won't be well received, because the moralistic superiority of the individuals here who want to raise emphasis and awareness of the perceived injustices of the current wars and past actions of the US precludes them from the expectations of respect and civility for their fellow man.
And honestly, I'm just outright pissed off that such a significant number of people here seem incapable of demonstrating any degree of kindness toward each other. I guess I raised the bar of expectations for today a little too high when I got up this morning.
On these subjects, if you read "news", or even *real* news , you're probably already unknowingly subject to various propaganda campaigns, unless you read a *really* wide range of news from various agencies and countries, in different languages.
The picture painted (for example) in the news in the Muslim world is not as rosy for the US as the whatever news you read.
I'm going to be the buzzkill and point out the obvious: Everyone is given to some degree of bias and no one is completely impartial no matter how many sources they read, not even you. Why? Because we each tend to believe or prefer news that fits into our worldview; this isn't a surprise, it isn't necessarily evil, it's simply a matter of being human.
It's unfortunate that it results in derogatory remarks made on both sides. Right now, however, anti-American sentiment is high and--justified or not--it is something dangerous. We like to believe here that we're not prone to the same sorts of behavior as the mouth-breathers who sit in front of the telly and soak up whatever rhetoric they're fed, but are we really?
If Sept. 11th, 2011 has shown me anything, it's that we're growing increasingly more hostile to each other; the West against itself, but predominantly the Americans and their allies against the Americans. This trend will continue, and if it does, it may escalate to the point of war. I'm cynical today, and it's certainly not helped by the fact that the rhetoric here and elsewhere goes against my country. Certainly America has made some bad choices, but it's an even worse choice for those here who have not bit their tongues and kept their criticisms for tomorrow. Today was to commemorate those who died on US soil; you can have tomorrow to remember everyone else.
1. Replaced autocratic theocracy with sham democratic theocracy. Beheading for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery are still the law in "liberated" Afghanistan.
2. Taliban-controlled areas, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, became the breeding ground for terrorists. Now that they are attacked by the U.S., it's a good and easy way to be "martyred" for those looking for it.
3. Poppy production is through the roof again, and floods Russia and Europe. Taliban used to burn the fields and kill the growers; the new government almost entirely consists of those people who cash in on selling drugs.
Doesn't seem to be much different now than it was pre-9/11... Seriously, there's a whole lot more wrong with Afghanistan than just the US, and it goes back to colonial times.
Actually, the graphics support is really good, but in my example, WoW has a *lot* more graphical features turned on in DirectX than OpenGL, so it would run faster in Linux or FreeBSD because it was using OpenGL (you had to run it in OGL mode in wine).
TBH, when I played WoW under Gentoo, I never did notice the difference between OpenGL and DirectX. In some cases, the OpenGL UI felt crisper. Although, I have no idea what it's like now; it's been about a year since I've played.
Of course, this should all be taken as an anecdote; I confess that I've never been too picky about graphics. Maybe that's why I find Minecraft entertaining!
Aside: I do know that addon management in WoW was infinitely easier under an OS with a real shell.:)
I find Ubuntu weighed down compared to others. Obviously purely anecdotal, but Debian seems much quicker and Gentoo (what I use) feels quicker even more so. BSD vs Gentoo would be a fairer fight.
Yes yes, I know after youve been compiling Gentoo for days it would be slower, but you cant argue against a cut to the bone system that Gentoo can provide. (which Ubuntu is anything but)
I have to agree. I played WoW on Gentoo for years, and in some cases the load times were noticeably reduced. Of course, it may have been due to the hardware I was using at the time, the lack of RAM, and Linux's generally faster behavior with swap compared to (at the time) WinXP. After I built a new box, I shifted more toward playing under Windows, although I do admit that the experience under Gentoo was either the same or somewhat superior to WinXP for games that would work well under Wine (or natively). I can't say for sure what it's like now; I rarely play games, and when I do, it's usually casual one-off games that I can kill a half hour with, or maybe trash the occasional evening (with frequent pauses!).
I do love Gentoo, but I've found myself becoming increasingly more fond of Arch once I figured my way around its eccentricities. In some ways, it's much more bare bones than Gentoo for better or for worse, and I think it would also be a pretty fair competitor with the *BSDs. Consequently, I find Arch to be much more BSD-like, particularly since it does even less for you than Gentoo does, and the init scripts are so basic that most obnoxious issues can be fixed pretty quickly since there's fewer layers of indirection.
That said, Gentoo's net configuration is by far the best I've encountered.
CBS. What have they done, that is worth shitting on, in 30 years?
You know, this made me laugh, and I got to thinking... the message CBS is sending seems counter to the underlying motif that ties most Star Trek episodes together.
Now, I'll confess: I'm no Trekkie, and it's been YEARS since I've even watched a single episode, but IIRC, TNG pushed an idea of a near utopian society with no money (actually, just cross-referenced with Wikipedia, but I seem to remember this from an episode or two). So CBS claims to own rights to a TV series whose very premise is counter to precisely this sort of legal threat.
Also, perhaps as sad as it is entertaining, CBS is squelching a genuinely useful tool that could feasible inspire certain almost-but-not-quite technologies from fictional shows like Star Trek. Indeed, it seems to me that a fairly important reason why we'll never see a Star Trek-like reality come to fruition is because of what CBS has done. Killing off an app because it competes with a similar (and admittedly awful) product that they're producing? Killing off an app because theirs serves as a mere wrapper around the fictional IP of the show, yet the app they did kill has some useful, redeeming value that could play a part of such a reality? Yeah, good job, CBS. As an American, I'm ashamed to say that greedy corporations like this are going to be the death knell of the US economy--more so than they have already.
Patent and trademark law fosters innovation? Hah!
Anyway, I have two ideas. One, someone should write a letter to CBS suggesting that they actually watch the content of the programs to which they own rights. If they don't feel inspired afterwards, then they should collectively resign and take a very long walk off a very short pier. Two, I wonder what they'd do if this app were mirrored in a gazillion locations? Can't send DMCA notices to everyone, now, can they?
we've had 25 years of crass consumerism, people being told they're nothing unless they have the latest gadgets or designer clothes, meanwhile we've seen increasing division between the haves and have nots
What you're describing isn't the fault of consumerism. It's the fault of a culture of entitlement. These individuals have repeatedly stated in interviews that they're taking things because they are owed. It has nothing to do with haves/have nots and everything to do with greed and the unwillingness to work for it. Although, I think you can rightfully blame politicians for this: They're the ones who drive a wedge along political lines to further divide the public.
All it took is an event (like yet another instance of the police going in mob-handed) that showed people the mood was right for mass violence on the streets and this was bound to happen. The people behind it had no political point to make but a series of political decisions instilled the conditions necessary for what we've just seen.
I don't think so. The British police have demonstrated far greater restraint through all of this than any other force in the world. If you think shooting a thug is police brutality, I'm not sure what you would do if you came to the US--we have repeatedly demonstrated numerous instances of brutality, many of which go unreported or underreported, and you're suggesting that the British are "mob-handed," yet not a shot was fired that I am aware of to kill any of these looters.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that Newegg doesn't just sell computer parts. I've purchased all sorts of goods from them, including a fairly inexpensive point-and-shoot camera for my mum.
What about people who want to play that game but can't because of the language barrier? Would you suggest that they're not benefiting from a crowd-sourced translation?
And you're forgetting that the producer is also a consumer: They're translating a game that they can then have access to in their native tongue, along with their friends who might not be able to speak English. By simplifying the relationships as you've done, you're twisting reality.
Or let's look at it another way: Someone likes to do something so much that they offer to do it for free; it just so happens that this thing they enjoy is translating. Perhaps they're a student or simply someone who would like to see the games they purchased available in their native language. Do they really lose out?
If they're a student, they can add this translation to their resume which would certainly bolster their position in the job market. If they're doing it so friends of theirs can play more easily, they receive the benefit of being able to play the game with their friends. If they're doing it just for the sake of doing it, they lose out--right? Nope, because individuals who volunteer for something of this sort receive satisfaction in some way (the key word being "volunteer"). No one's forcing them.
That said, I do think Valve ought to offer them a few copies of the game being translated, but they are under absolutely no obligation to provide compensation.
Yes, read the first paragraph indeed, which you did not quote from. I'll help:
In this particular case, Valve's customers have not entered into any agreement for compensation, and individual translators are likely working for their "own advantage," e.g. having available a translation in their native tongue.
Further, since everyone is caught up in the notion that this applies to religious organizations and that they are the only ones exempt, it might also behoove you to read that specific part:
I suspect this is yet another case of someone cherry-picking without reading the entire text in full. Valve has lawyers; do not believe that they would be so ignorant as to do something intentionally wrong. I realize this is Slashdot and the underlying premise of these arguments is that corporations are evil. Corporations aren't immoral; they're amoral. The people leading them can be immoral, and if they are--and they get caught--then they may suffer the consequences of their actions.
Either way, I suspect everyone interpreting the FLSA to mean that Valve--and anyone with unpaid volunteer labor--hasn't read anything of the links provided.
Perhaps "regularly" reminding consumers they're eating cooked, dead animal carcasses might be of some use to ethical vegetarians/vegans, but for the rest of us: Animals are damn tasty.
This is at least one of the things that's been bugging me about Slashdot as of late. It's almost to the point that sites like Reddit et al are at; widespread belief of government-level conspiracy, "news blackouts," and the notion that there's a massive secret protest going on somewhere. I'm really beginning to believe most of the posters here are either completely delusional or trolling. I'm hoping for the latter, but since many of them seem pretty vehement about it, I'm not holding out much hope. Of course, I doubt any of them will make the connection you did, because they'll fail to see the dichotomy they've created, and they're likely to call you numerous unsavory things for pointing out the obvious.
Years ago, Slashdot was somewhat unique in that it had more critical thinkers per capita than most other sites at the time. While I still enjoy most of the conversations and at least some of the posts, I can't help but wonder how it's possible for such a large (or perhaps mostly vocal) chunk of the Slashdot community to repeat nonsense they hear elsewhere without any obvious effort put into considering whether or not it's even possible, true, or plausible.
Blaming Wallstreet for an "information blackout" (and ultimately for the current economic situation, while simultaneously giving the government a free pass) is one such thing that comes to mind. If the economy falters, companies are bringing in less revenue; anyone who's taken a basic business class ought to know that companies have only two obligations: 1) to the shareholders and, by extension 2) growth. Considering the selling of assets, outsourcing, closing of factories, etc., it sure seems to me that the problem isn't with Wallstreet but rather a weakened economy. Of course, trying to explain this to the typical poster here is impossible. You'll be met with either "you're one of them!" or "you're a shill for (company|politician|ideology)!"
Then again, I guess that's the best thing about being delusional. You can be faced with valid criticisms and blow them all off with ad hominem discourse while feeling you're maintaining your own intellectual integrity!
So I suppose doctors, who must occasionally pick up new techniques and new information; teachers, who must occasionally learn new things and take workshops in order to better prepare their students for an ever-changing world; lawyers, who must adapt to new laws; and scientists who occasionally discover something groundbreaking enough to create a fundamental shift in their field are not professionals? This leaves us with historians as the only professionals who can truly master something, because history is not subject to change in most circumstances--oh wait, there's those pesky archaeologists and anthropologists who are continually mucking about with unearthing new discoveries...
All right, then. It appears we have no professionals among the disciplines based on your benchmark. Rather, we've established that every field experiences some degree of change; what we're arguing over is what rate of change is acceptable in order to classify a field as "professional."
CoffeeScript doesn't pretend to address the performance problems with ECMAScript. In fact, it can't, because the CoffeeScript interpreter is just a translator that converts CoffeeScript into equivalent JavaScript. The only things that it addresses are those which make JavaScript's syntax somewhat awkward, and I think it does a fairly respectable job toward that goal.
TBH, I would take it a notch further and say that anyone (including companies) who receives public funding should be required to render a public service by providing that information to the public. After all, the public paid for it.
Now, it obviously gets messier if a company only receives 2% of their funding from public sources for whatever purposes, but the research the comes out of that shouldn't go back into their secret portfolio. I'd be find with companies keeping things to themselves that they alone paid for, but the problem is that you'll always find someone willing to game the system.
In some parts of the DoD it's so bad that, due to the way the finances work, if there is unallocated parts of the budget they'll be removed for the following fiscal year, sending everyone into a scramble to spend whatever's left of their budget before the axe drops. It's no secret then that most divisions will then spend exactly their share (or request more) simply so that they don't receive a budget shortfall in the case they actually need the money.
If you think about it, it's really just a symptom of a broken system. Government budgets should probably be based more on need than on historical performance; it makes sense that those divisions who don't really "need" the money this year would be willing to spend it all just on the offhand chance they have a bigger project next year and would otherwise become underfunded.
Also, there was an excellent article on Kuro5hin a number of years ago detailing why bureaucratic red tape in departments like the DoD often lead to spending more rather than less. I can't seem to find it anymore, but perhaps someone with a better memory than I could link it. I haven't any idea how truthful it was, but I recall that it didn't seem all that unusual.
Not only that, but...
Most people who are nervous for whatever reason will do at least one or more of those things even when they're not necessarily lying. So, congratulations, you just pegged someone for being nervous!
This is Slashdot where there are plenty of self-proclaimed "open-minded" individuals who profess to be without bias while simultaneously disbelieving anything that doesn't fit within the neat confines of their world view. Humorously, they place the blame of this activity upon the shoulders of those with whom they disagree.
Damn, I hope they never discover 4chan.
They may brag about it, but that was never in the version of the State constitution that was ratified when they rejoined the union.
There's a lot of this on Slashdot anymore. Personal sniping, denigrating comments, loads of self-righteousness. Maybe it's always been this way, but it certainly seems to be getting worse (well, politics.slashdot.org has always been pretty bad...).
Just to back up your observations: I triple boot between Win7, Arch, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu seems to take the longest of all three, although it's on my oldest disk and thus that distinction is probably unfair. Post-boot, Windows takes the longest to reach a usable state, but it's most definitely not abysmal. I also have quite a few services installed, so it's likely something expected. Windows has never done particularly well in that regard, but again, it's not abysmal.
I suspect anyone who might disagree with you has never owned a copy of Windows.
That does bring something entertaining to mind. At least, it was funny in my head, so I apologize if it isn't so humorous written out. Imagine the following scenario:
Most televised broadcasts in the United States are paid for by some permutation of subscription fees to a cable or satellite service and/or advertisements. Imagine the conundrum presented if most torrents of these broadcasts contained identical ads*. The content creators couldn't necessarily argue that they were losing out on any inherent value, because the commercials would receive even greater exposure! Yes, yes, I know that's not the point that they'd argue, but it would be at least vaguely appealing if some network said "Hey, as long as you leave commercials our supporters paid for in the torrent, we don't mind."
* Presume that the content consumers were either too lazy or not savvy enough to strip these out.
I think you're a little too willing to tar most of the religious right with the same brush. I'm religious and reasonably right-leaning, and I suggest taking anything read on Rapture Ready with a grain of salt; had they actually read scripture, they'd understand two things: 1) it's impossible to predict the day or the hour and 2) the end cannot be hastened by our actions. That said, I do admit that I would classify those guys as the fringe religious crowd.
However, I suspect, judging by the rest of your rhetoric, that you simply have an axe to grind and have no real interest in dialog. I do hope I'm wrong, because it would also appear that the atheist-leaning mods of which I believe the majority is comprised agree with your position.
Side note: Why is Slashdot degenerating into Reddit all of a sudden? I thought we were more civil here?
Not completely. For twenty years (likely longer), the intelligence apparatus of the US had been weakened, but most importantly, it was never designed to address the use case presented in the Afghan/Iraqi wars. Rather, it was designed with a strong, state-like adversary such as the USSR, in mind where conventional tactics tend to work reasonably well and door-to-door tribal-level tactics do not.
That, fundamentally, is why it took ten years to find and kill bin Laden.
The problem isn't necessarily with you, but if you were to scroll a little further up the thread, you might find topics titled "fuck the usa" along with matching rhetoric that leads those who may have lost (or feel a strong emotional attachment to those lost) loved ones on Sept. 11th to feel pretty upset. There isn't anything wrong with sharing opinions, but I think one of the generalized problems here is that most of us tend not to fully appreciate social norms for when certain things are truly appropriate to share, and more importantly when they are not.
Of course, there's those who feel that condemning the actions of the US on the 11th to be highly appropriate; though, they're simply delusional and more interested in their own self-righteousness. They won't feel that way, of course, but piousness and a feeling of moralistic superiority over others (like Americans) is the fundamental definition of such. Hence, it should be at least somewhat reasonable to expect that most Americans might feel an inkling of offense at the anti-American (either presumed or real) slant offered in some posts above. Again, I don't think all of these posts are so much malicious as they are exceedingly poorly timed, like yours. Yes, I know: What better time to discuss bin Laden and his motives than in a story about 9/11! To do so and to be honestly surprised at some of the negative responses supports my inference that we geeks tend to be difficult at handling social norms. Don't be surprised; instead, I would advise that you (but mostly the others who are more vocal and less polite) try to offer some degree of understanding.
For instance, assuming all else is equal, some of these posts would be akin to waiting until 2021 and posting on Slashdot for the anniversary of the Norway shooting/bombing "Fuck Norway." Unfortunately, even this example won't be well received, because the moralistic superiority of the individuals here who want to raise emphasis and awareness of the perceived injustices of the current wars and past actions of the US precludes them from the expectations of respect and civility for their fellow man.
And honestly, I'm just outright pissed off that such a significant number of people here seem incapable of demonstrating any degree of kindness toward each other. I guess I raised the bar of expectations for today a little too high when I got up this morning.
I'm going to be the buzzkill and point out the obvious: Everyone is given to some degree of bias and no one is completely impartial no matter how many sources they read, not even you. Why? Because we each tend to believe or prefer news that fits into our worldview; this isn't a surprise, it isn't necessarily evil, it's simply a matter of being human.
It's unfortunate that it results in derogatory remarks made on both sides. Right now, however, anti-American sentiment is high and--justified or not--it is something dangerous. We like to believe here that we're not prone to the same sorts of behavior as the mouth-breathers who sit in front of the telly and soak up whatever rhetoric they're fed, but are we really?
If Sept. 11th, 2011 has shown me anything, it's that we're growing increasingly more hostile to each other; the West against itself, but predominantly the Americans and their allies against the Americans. This trend will continue, and if it does, it may escalate to the point of war. I'm cynical today, and it's certainly not helped by the fact that the rhetoric here and elsewhere goes against my country. Certainly America has made some bad choices, but it's an even worse choice for those here who have not bit their tongues and kept their criticisms for tomorrow. Today was to commemorate those who died on US soil; you can have tomorrow to remember everyone else.
Doesn't seem to be much different now than it was pre-9/11... Seriously, there's a whole lot more wrong with Afghanistan than just the US, and it goes back to colonial times.
TBH, when I played WoW under Gentoo, I never did notice the difference between OpenGL and DirectX. In some cases, the OpenGL UI felt crisper. Although, I have no idea what it's like now; it's been about a year since I've played.
Of course, this should all be taken as an anecdote; I confess that I've never been too picky about graphics. Maybe that's why I find Minecraft entertaining!
Aside: I do know that addon management in WoW was infinitely easier under an OS with a real shell. :)
I have to agree. I played WoW on Gentoo for years, and in some cases the load times were noticeably reduced. Of course, it may have been due to the hardware I was using at the time, the lack of RAM, and Linux's generally faster behavior with swap compared to (at the time) WinXP. After I built a new box, I shifted more toward playing under Windows, although I do admit that the experience under Gentoo was either the same or somewhat superior to WinXP for games that would work well under Wine (or natively). I can't say for sure what it's like now; I rarely play games, and when I do, it's usually casual one-off games that I can kill a half hour with, or maybe trash the occasional evening (with frequent pauses!).
I do love Gentoo, but I've found myself becoming increasingly more fond of Arch once I figured my way around its eccentricities. In some ways, it's much more bare bones than Gentoo for better or for worse, and I think it would also be a pretty fair competitor with the *BSDs. Consequently, I find Arch to be much more BSD-like, particularly since it does even less for you than Gentoo does, and the init scripts are so basic that most obnoxious issues can be fixed pretty quickly since there's fewer layers of indirection.
That said, Gentoo's net configuration is by far the best I've encountered.
You know, this made me laugh, and I got to thinking... the message CBS is sending seems counter to the underlying motif that ties most Star Trek episodes together.
Now, I'll confess: I'm no Trekkie, and it's been YEARS since I've even watched a single episode, but IIRC, TNG pushed an idea of a near utopian society with no money (actually, just cross-referenced with Wikipedia, but I seem to remember this from an episode or two). So CBS claims to own rights to a TV series whose very premise is counter to precisely this sort of legal threat.
Also, perhaps as sad as it is entertaining, CBS is squelching a genuinely useful tool that could feasible inspire certain almost-but-not-quite technologies from fictional shows like Star Trek. Indeed, it seems to me that a fairly important reason why we'll never see a Star Trek-like reality come to fruition is because of what CBS has done. Killing off an app because it competes with a similar (and admittedly awful) product that they're producing? Killing off an app because theirs serves as a mere wrapper around the fictional IP of the show, yet the app they did kill has some useful, redeeming value that could play a part of such a reality? Yeah, good job, CBS. As an American, I'm ashamed to say that greedy corporations like this are going to be the death knell of the US economy--more so than they have already.
Patent and trademark law fosters innovation? Hah!
Anyway, I have two ideas. One, someone should write a letter to CBS suggesting that they actually watch the content of the programs to which they own rights. If they don't feel inspired afterwards, then they should collectively resign and take a very long walk off a very short pier. Two, I wonder what they'd do if this app were mirrored in a gazillion locations? Can't send DMCA notices to everyone, now, can they?
What you're describing isn't the fault of consumerism. It's the fault of a culture of entitlement. These individuals have repeatedly stated in interviews that they're taking things because they are owed. It has nothing to do with haves/have nots and everything to do with greed and the unwillingness to work for it. Although, I think you can rightfully blame politicians for this: They're the ones who drive a wedge along political lines to further divide the public.
I don't think so. The British police have demonstrated far greater restraint through all of this than any other force in the world. If you think shooting a thug is police brutality, I'm not sure what you would do if you came to the US--we have repeatedly demonstrated numerous instances of brutality, many of which go unreported or underreported, and you're suggesting that the British are "mob-handed," yet not a shot was fired that I am aware of to kill any of these looters.